Author
Topic: Fenix / Soyuz 5 Rocket (Read 47323 times)

Here's my attempt to summarize and analyze recent developments in Russia's rocket program : the decision to launch Federatsia on Soyuz-5 rather than Angara-5P, a brief history of Soyuz-5/Sunkar/Feniks, the decision to speed up development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle.

Surely you can have non-symmetrical booster setups? That's what Atlas V does every time it flies with boosters. Yes, I know these boosters are a lot bigger than those on Atlas, but given that people have proposed two core setups in the past, I would suspect it would be possible?

5 boosters is an odd choice... 4 allows you more flexibility (4 or 2), But with 5... its 5 or nothing.

Atlas V proves this statement is wrong. It can use 0; 1; 2; 3; 4 or 5 boosters. Opposed to Angara where 0; 2; (3;) 4 or 6 boosters are proposed. I expect 3 boosters to also be possible on Angara. (Angara 1.2 = 0; Angara 5 = 4 boosters)The problem is, that all the configurations need to be accounted for. And with throttling or engine gimbaling the thrust vector needs to be corrected. This five cores around the sixth center core looks to be the most dense core arangement. There is hardly any space around the center core where there isn't a booster. 4 boosters would create unoccupied spaces.This is with the cores directly in contact at one point. With six boosters, direct contact isn't possible anymore.Didn't the Energia/ Buran also have a non symmetric booster configuration?

Zenit was also proposed to have a single-strapon configuration. Which seems pretty relevant given the similar engines on this concept (RD-170 family apparently already having the control authority to maintain attitude control even with a single same-sized booster)

On Energia the Zenit Boosters were symmetric on on only one axis (x/y) but not the other to accommodate the Buran and Polyus. Energia in its original design, before side mounting the payload became the thing, it would have allowed 8 boosters with payload on top. When Buran came along they designed a modified core stage to mount the Buran and took off 4 boosters. The 8 booster design was shelved in favour of fly payloads with Buran.

5 boosters is an odd choice... 4 allows you more flexibility (4 or 2), But with 5... its 5 or nothing.

Atlas V proves this statement is wrong. It can use 0; 1; 2; 3; 4 or 5 boosters. Opposed to Angara where 0; 2; (3;) 4 or 6 boosters are proposed. I expect 3 boosters to also be possible on Angara. (Angara 1.2 = 0; Angara 5 = 4 boosters)The problem is, that all the configurations need to be accounted for. And with throttling or engine gimbaling the thrust vector needs to be corrected.

Yes clearly can be done in theory - and the Atlas V SRBs are not as powerful as the central core itself. (Same with Energia) Doing it with equal strength cores present more of a gimbal challenge.

My other concern with 5 boosters is that requires massive changes to the central core to handle 6 times the load. FH is giving SpaceX a lot of problems, but that is far easier than FIVE(!!!) cores attached. This makes Angara A5 look easy.

The Russians are spoilt for choice with great engines yet they struggle to put new LV together. Most other countries or companies, it is engine development that holds them back when developing a new LV.

I think that one of the big brain breakers for Fenix / Soyuz 5 will be the launch site.Only at the Baikonur Cosmodrome there is a launch site for Zenit (LandLaunch). And there is the Odyssey Semi-submersible platform for former (SeaLaunch). Now owned by S7 Group.How to launch Soyuz 5 from a Cosmodrome in Russian territory (Plesetsk or Vostochny)?Possibly they could convert Plesetsk LC-41 (former Soyuz/R-7 site).

I think that one of the big brain breakers for Fenix / Soyuz 5 will be the launch site.Only at the Baikonur Cosmodrome there is a launch site for Zenit (LandLaunch). And there is the Odyssey Semi-submersible platform for former (SeaLaunch). Now owned by S7 Group.How to launch Soyuz 5 from a Cosmodrome in Russian territory (Plesetsk or Vostochny)?Possibly they could convert Plesetsk LC-41 (former Soyuz/R-7 site).

You will see it from Baikonur first followed by Vostochny. That is the approved development order for now. You will not see it at Plesetsk until present Soyuz-2 fleet is phased out at which time MoD will be flying its payloads on Angara family.

So the Vostochny extremely heavy pad is in development for Fenix / Soyuz 5.Aren't Soyuz 2.1v; 2.1A and 2.B and Angara 1.2 and 5 complementary to each other. All serve a different market. Soyuz 5 could replace Soyuz 2.1A and -B, going to an all RD-17x/19x launcher family. Angara 3 could also replace Soyuz 2.1A & -B but that isn't planned right?

Dmitry, does the current Soyuz-5 design have theoretical capability (or enough performance/physical space) to install equipment for down range recovery of the first stage? For example they can use a dedicated vernier engine around the RD-171 for the entry/landing burns and land (vertically) on the down range grasslands. If that doesn't work they can even re-use the Energia concept of simply using parachutes (doesn't really need pinpoint landing accuracy if they have all terrain vehicles for stage recovery on the steppes).

Dmitry, does the current Soyuz-5 design have theoretical capability (or enough performance/physical space) to install equipment for down range recovery of the first stage? For example they can use a dedicated vernier engine around the RD-171 for the entry/landing burns and land (vertically) on the down range grasslands. If that doesn't work they can even re-use the Energia concept of simply using parachutes (doesn't really need pinpoint landing accuracy if they have all terrain vehicles for stage recovery on the steppes).

If so, what penalty would there be in terms of launcher performance?

Theoretically it is possible. But the management of "Energy" has told that "Soyuz-5" will be a disposable rocket. Technologies of reuse are planned to be fulfilled on rockets of an light class approximately in 2030.